Condoleezza Rice Must Go

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Howard Dean is right somebody in the Bush Administration must go. Condoleezza Rice's finger pointing at the CIA today clearly shows she lacks the maturity and the skill to be National Security Advisor.
After all it was the administration that sent Wilson to Africa to investigate the uranium story in the first place. The CIA should not have to be the whipping boy for an incompetent administration.
Last week on the Sunday news shows she lied when she said they did not know the African uranium data was bogus.
She lied or shows very little NSA savvy when she said nobody knew that an airliner could be used as an offensive weapon.
Rice should resign or Bush should fire her.

[Jason Menard]

The CIA evaluates intelligence, not the White House. The GW Bush cabinet is probably the most experienced ever assembled.
The whining over WMDs is getting old. Find one single world leader or UN bureaucrat who did not believe Iraq had an ongoing active WMD program. The French knew it, the Germans knew it, the Russians knew it, Hans Blix knew it, everybody knew it. The sure joy these people demonstrate because we have not yet uncovered the Iraqi WMD program (after what, 10 weeks or so?) and the politically motivated finger pointing by the liberals and anti-Bush crowd is beyond pathetic.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I'd be inclined to suspect that the CIA simply checked the speech for classified information leaks. They can't be concerned with accuracy. It's not the CIA's job to tell the president he's wrong about national security matters.
Beyond pathetic was the Monica Lewinsky show put on by the GOP.
Trumping up the charges to bring the country to war because you did not feel you had a strong enough case is wholly a different matter. Maybe it seems like whining to you, but the rest of the world is going to find greater conviction in their claims that the US is an evil empire ...

[Mapraputa Is]

(CBS) Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.
Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake.
“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell.
But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
“I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said."
LOL

[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

The members of Blair's cabinet that resigned where they doves or where they fighting injustice? Why didn't Condolezza quit, has she no shame?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Dont say anything against GWB administrators and administration

[Mapraputa Is]

This was my revenge for "the whining over WMDs".

[Thomas Paul]

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/11/115129

For his part, Prime Minister Blair has argued that the British intelligence was based not on documents from Niger officials that later came under suspicion as possible forgeries, but on separate evidence from independent sources not known to the U.S.
Among the evidence Blair did reveal, however, was Iraq's purchase of 200 tons or uranium from Niger in the 1980s.
Although Fleet Street has given extensive coverage to Blair's defense of British intelligence on the Iraq-Niger nuke connection, America's establishment press had embargoed the story until Powell's comments Friday.
Some U.S. news outlets have gone so far as to misstate outright the British prime minister's position on the controversy.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
It's not the CIA's job to tell the president he's wrong about national security matters.

It is the CIA's job to provide and evaluate intelligence information to a degree as accurately as possible. So yes, it is up to the CIA and the rest of the National Security team to clue in the President about what certain information means and what impact it has.
Trumping up the charges to bring the country to war because you did not feel you had a strong enough case is wholly a different matter.
There wer eno trumped up charges. As I said before, everybody, including the now whining lefties knew he had a WMD program. That was never an issue with the lefties. Their only concern has been and will continue to be the next election.
Maybe it seems like whining to you, but the rest of the world is going to find greater conviction in their claims that the US is an evil empire ...
Greater than what? They already have a pretty strong conviction about that. We don't need to go into the hypocritical ways of many of our detractors though. But anyway, when have we ever cared what they thought about us?

[Jason Menard]

What's really sad is that people are bothering a) asking for justification, and b) providing justification, for overthrowing one of the worst monsters of our time. A man who was right up there with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Karadzic, to name a few.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What's really sad..

Taking laws in hands is also as sad as it is.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Originally posted by Jason Meynard
PN: But that's okay as long as I'm not personally in any imminent danger.

How quickly the imminent threat has changed to a WMD program.

What's really sad is that people are bothering ...

What's really sad is George Bush and company have been caught lying redhanded for political expediency or hidden agendas and you are defending them.

Their only concern has been and will continue to be the next election.

Oh that's so cynical, people will soon be accusing you of being Rufus Bugleweed.

But anyway, when have we ever cared what they thought about us?

:roll:

[Mapraputa Is]

From Tom's link:
"Some U.S. news outlets have gone so far as to misstate outright the British prime minister's position on the controversy.
On Thursday the New York Daily News editorial page claimed erroneously that "Saddam was not trying to buy uranium from Niger. Downing Street and the White House have now admitted as much."
I am confused now. Was Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger or not?
"WASHINGTON (July 12) - CIA Director George Tenet gave Congress and the White House the accountability they demanded, declaring Friday that the blame for President Bush's false allegation about an Iraqi nuclear deal rested squarely with him and his agency.
The CIA should never have let Bush repeat a British report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country of Niger when U.S. intelligence analysts could not corroborate it, Tenet said in a statement. Ultimately, the allegation proved false.
"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said, referring to Bush's State of the Union speech in January.

[Anonymous]

For Rufus.

[D Kumar]

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=CIA+admits+error+in+uranium+claim&id=40226

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am confused now. Was Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger or not?

AFAIK, the British are sticking by their claim, stating they have additional info than what the US has, and the US is now unsure of the validity of the original British report.
Mistakenly repeating intelligence that was believed valid and lying are qite different things. When it comes right down to it, intelligence analysis is making the best possible guess from the information at hand. Sometimes it's right on, sometimes it's not. Nobody except a few radical lefties seems to actually believe that there was any deliberate attempt to mislead.
I came across an interesting book on intelligence analysis that was put out by the CIA. You can find it here. The foreword by Douglas MacEachin is worth a quick read at least.

The articles are based on reviewing cognitive psychology literature concerning how people process information to make judgments on incomplete and ambiguous information.

How many times have we encountered situations in which completely plausible premises, based on solid expertise, have been used to construct a logically valid forecast--with virtually unanimous agreement--that turned out to be dead wrong? In how many of these instances have we determined, with hindsight, that the problem was not in the logic but in the fact that one of the premises--however plausible it seemed at the time--was incorrect?

See also Improving Intelligence Analysis.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Rufus BuggleWeed:
PN: But that's okay as long as I'm not personally in any imminent danger.

How quickly the imminent threat has changed to a WMD program.

You got that one way out of context (or didn't understand it). I suggest re-reading the whole thread you ripped that from. Mine was a suggested modification of a post in that thread made by Thomas Paul.

What's really sad is George Bush and company have been caught lying redhanded for political expediency or hidden agendas and you are defending them.

This would go under the heading of fallacies. Operating under wrong information (if indeed it was) is not the same as lying. Since we all appreciate facts here, I'm sure you have the facts available that show the President was lying. You also neglected to comment in any way about all those left-leaning types who were also quite sure of the Hussein WMD programs, including the ever so esteemed Hans Blix, Koffi Annan, and Jaques Chirac.
So while the lefties are now doing an about face and saying that their hero Saddam Hussein never had these weapons, it seems much more likely that in fact he did have these weapons and they have been simply hidden and/or moved (to Syria possibly, as many have suggested).
But again, who really cares, Hussein has been dethroned. Another man firmly in the mold of Hitler, Stalin, et al, has been taken care of. Remember who it is exactly that many of the lefties wish was still running things over there.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Oh! I see GWB has expressed full confidence in his fall guy today. Let's see what next week brings.
I am all for the ouster of Saddam and numerous other despots about the world. $75 billion this fiscal year and 4 or 5 billion a month after that on top of that starts to get expensive. Let's pile on increases in defense spending and a prescription drug plan. Deficit spending in a recession, I'll grant, you is good.
My confidence in George Bush the straight shooter from Texas is shaken. Should the rumor mill confirm the administration overroad objections from the CIA coupled with the fact that it was Cheney that sent Wilson to Africa, I stand by my assertion the Condoleezza should be sacrificed at the alter of truth.
With many high ranking Iraqii officials in custody, and with so much of the Iraqii people free to speak without fear of repercussion the US's inability to find WMDs is starting to look real bad. Are no monetary inducements being laid out? Are no all expense paid trips in the witness protection program being dangled in front of the locals? They don't have to reveal intelligence sources now, they can drive up in trucks and sieze WMDs.
I think if I was Saddam, I would have been more concerned about moving 640 Million in cash out of the country than hiding my WMDs in Syria.

[John Dunn]

But again, who really cares, Hussein has been dethroned. Another man firmly in the mold of Hitler, Stalin, et al, has been taken care of. Remember who it is exactly that many of the lefties wish was still running things over there. I tend to agree with this. I did mention something of the like to my intelligent leftie Irish buddie and he said that Hitler & Stalin had 10-20s of millions killed, Pol Pot - ~3 million and Sadaam had like 200,000. Does anyone have any info of this?? I guess we're trying to see were he REALLY ranks on the list of bad-guys. Does anyone happen to know??

[Mapraputa Is]

From <ps> link:
"Several months ago, I heard radio host Michael Savage refer to liberalism as a “mental disorder.” As odd as this concept might seem, I think I actually agree with him. "
This is sad.
From Rufus link in another thread:
"Ideology is the disease of the modern era. From the fifties to today we've seen a proliferation of ideologies. An ideology is nothing more than a political philosophy. It's fine to have a political philosophy, but when a person who holds a political philosophy reaches the point of such absolute certainty about it that he or she can't believe it could possibly be false and is not interested in debating its truth or falsity with others, it can become dangerous. Liberals and conservatives, for example, never talk to each other any more. They talk past each other, and by and large they demonize each other. Liberals look at conservatives as evil people and vice versa. That's what ideologies do. They cause people to depersonalize their political enemies. Political enemies come to be seen as representatives of ideas rather than as flesh and blood."
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-05-20.htm
[ July 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason!
I love your logic when you defend your people, but why is that as soon as you start talking about the other side, your lexicon endures dramatical change, and we have such pearls as "whining about WMDs", for example. For one thing, "lefties" weren't so desperate for Saddam's WMD, so who is whining now? From all I read, "lefties" exercise in sarcasm (Dog ate my WMD...) rather than whine.
You also neglected to comment in any way about all those left-leaning types who were also quite sure of the Hussein WMD programs, including the ever so esteemed Hans Blix, Koffi Annan, and Jaques Chirac.
Do you have any evidences that Hans Blix and Koffi Annan lean to the left, rather then simply communicate their views on the problem?
So while the lefties are now doing an about face and saying that their hero Saddam Hussein never had these weapons
Saddam Hussein is lefties' hero? Are you serious?
Thanks for the links. Looks interesting...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
[b]I guess we're trying to see were he REALLY ranks on the list of bad-guys. Does anyone happen to know??

The toll from the Iran-Iraq war may be around 800,000, the toll from the first Gulf war is not reliably known, but assumed to be in the thousands. Jay Garner believes that Hussein may have executed up to 1,000,000 Iraqis. One number I've seen from the Kurds is that somewhere around 187,000 Kurds were killed and many thousands wounded due to the attack on Halabja and the Anfal operations.
So given all these numbers, and not knowing where they may overlap, it still seems possible that the number of deaths that Hussein is responsible for could be somewhere in the 1.8 - 2.0 million range, although there is probably no way of really knowing for sure.
http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00001146.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-garner3jul03,0,3980782.story?coll=chi-news-hed
http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/9-9-02-ali-chemical-in-algeria.html

[Michael Morris]

Do you have any evidences that Hans Blix and Koffi Annan lean to the left, rather then simply communicate their views on the problem?
The duck test. If it waddles and quacks there is a high probability that it is a duck.

[John Dunn]

my intelligent leftie Irish buddie
is admittingly 'leftie' - (his word) - but not un-American
He is intelligent and well-read/written. I guess he comes from the school of thought that protects INDIVIDUAL rights at all costs. (I don't agree with him but glad we have people like him, b/c it keeps the right clean.)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I guess he comes from the school of thought that protects INDIVIDUAL rights at all costs.]

Hmm... I never really saw that as a liberal issue. For example, many of the right-wing so-called militia groups in the US are very much into protecting individual freedoms afaik. Same with groups like the NRA. In general conservatives seem to be more for less intrusive government. I do think this cuts across all strata of our society though, although it's hard to figure out how something like the Patriot Act gets pushed through.

[Jason Menard]

Just wanted to add one quick thing that I should have mentioned before. Many may not be aware of what exactly has the liberals' panties all in a knot. In Bush's State of the Union address was this one sentence that the anti-Bush crowd are in a tizzy over: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Now Ruffus has claimed earlier that this constitutes a lie on the part of the President. This is most obviously not a lie as the British did in fact report this. Supposedly this was in part due to some documents the British had concerning dealings in Niger. The US has sinced decided that the particular piece of intelligence used to back this statement does not pass all the tests necessary and thus the sentence should have been stricken from the State of the Union speech. The British, citing different sources of intelligence, are saying that they stand by the claim that Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.
See this article and this article for more info on this subject.
You would think from all the left's caterwauling that these sixteen words in the State of the Union address were the soul evidence and justification used to depose the monstrous dictator, or even that it was a large part of the evidence and justification. This of course is not true, but rarely have they let that stand in their way. In reality, all this left-wing drama is of no greater significance than their righteous indignation over Bush's aircraft carrier landing.
[ July 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: the anti-Bush crowd are in a tissy over
Map: tissy...
Atomica: "Perhaps you meant:
�hissy
�missy
�sissy
�Tussy
�tipsy"

[Jim Yingst]

www.m-w.com lists tizzy as the first suggested alternative, and that's the one Jason evidently meant.

[Billy Tsai]

The Iraq thing is over whats done are the past lets just continue on the future and deal with North Korea and the Chinese totalirian communists regimes, lets not forget they have long range tactical nuclear missiles targeting US and their neighbouring countries in asia, also they sell weapons to terrorists regimes for example the Taliban reigme's AK47 are all made in china.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
www.m-w.com lists tizzy as the first suggested alternative, and that's the one Jason evidently meant.

Spelling corrected.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Spelling corrected.

Thanks. I think, we should add this to the list of MD official rules:
When insulting your political opponents, please, check spelling.

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
The Iraq thing is over whats done are the past lets just continue on the future and deal with North Korea and the Chinese totalirian communists regimes

Agree absolutely. France will be the next. How many Americans approve Chirac according to the last poll? Then why should we tolerate him as a leader of France? And French people, I am sure, will like our occupation administration much better too.
[ July 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Dunn]

JM: In general conservatives seem to be more for less intrusive government. I do think this cuts across all strata of our society though, although it's hard to figure out how something like the Patriot Act gets pushed through.
It seems like my buddy is Completely against Bush and team - in terms of the Patriot Act AND as far as the Dixie Chicks are concerned. I get the feeling that Bush is conservative and anti-freedom, Bush is for Patriot Act, Patriot Act is therefore an anti-freedom measure. I sense that their European background may play a role in this. After all they had their fill with the British and the British are our allies here. (I do NOT agree with their rationale.) I just find it interesting that there are many very intelligent folks that are highly opposed to Bush in light of what al Queda has done and would like to do. (I do see the internal opposition as a way to keep the right clean, so in my eyes they are a sort of check & balance.)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Then why should we tolerate him as a leader of France?

The fallacy demonstrated here is in trying to draw a parallel between "murderous dictators" on one hand, and "world leaders we don't particularly care for" on the other.

And French people, I am sure, will like our occupation administration much better too.

I suppose there might be some historic truth behind that statement.

[Billy Tsai]

China and North korea are just as bad as Iraq and in fact probably worse than Iran and Iraq.
The only thing they haven't done yet is invade their neighbouring country but its gonna happen sooner or later because they threatens the neighbouring countries with weapons to try to oppress the freedom and right of ppl.
The world shouldn't put with those communists regimes.

[Mapraputa Is]

JM: The fallacy demonstrated here is in trying to draw a parallel between "murderous dictators" on one hand, and "world leaders we don't particularly care for" on the other.
Well, I said "France will be the next". I do not suggest to start with France. You are absolutely right, of course we should deal with murderous dictators first. After we liberate North Korea, China and Cuba, then it will be time to look at France. If we allow France to get away with its blatantly anti-American politics, then we can soon expect the rest of Europe to follow its example. And lets not forget that France happily collaborated with Saddam selling him weapons.
Jason, frankly your "we don't particularly care for" bothers me a little. It's like to say that a murderer deserves punishment, but the guy who sold him a gun knowing very well that he deals with a murderer, we do not care for him.

[Mapraputa Is]

BT: China and North korea are just as bad as Iraq and in fact probably worse than Iran and Iraq.
What about Cuba? Let's not forget about Cuba. It's just as bad as China and North Korea.
The only thing they haven't done yet is invade their neighbouring country but its gonna happen sooner or later because they threatens the neighbouring countries with weapons to try to oppress the freedom and right of ppl.
Again very wise line of reasoning. How long can we wait for them to invade their neighbors? And what it really changes if they have not yet, does it make them less dangerous? A murderer a day before murdering was a murderer already.
I am glad that America finally got a leader brave enough to start the process. It takes one leader to do the right thing, and people will join, as they see the truth.
Of course, some liberals, like our friend Jason, would prefer to wait until France attack us. :roll:
The world shouldn't put with those communists regimes.
The problem with the world is that it doesn't seem to care a dime about dictators and communists regimes. As usual, America will have to do all the job. Fortunately we got to the point where we are strong enough not to care about the rest of the world whining and bitching while we clean the planet.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
The Iraq thing is over whats done are the past lets just continue on the future and deal with North Korea and the Chinese totalirian communists regimes.

I wont say much..
But you know power is shown on weaker.
US wont do anything till he made N.K and China weak.
AFA today is concerned, both have said 'NO' for lot of things, straight on US face and it could not do anything.
If I remember correctly Defence Ministry of N.K issued a statement when war was going on that they would continue their nuclear program and wont listen US as Iraq listened to them and they could see what is the result of destroying your arms & ammunition.
AW please continue....

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
its gonna happen sooner or later because they threatens the neighbouring countries with weapons to try to oppress the freedom and right of ppl.

Then let these neighbours country decides whether they want US help or not regarding this.
And if without asking giving your hand for help has become habbit of US then alas, as once long back Jason gave link, US should stop doing this ASAP.
also they sell weapons to terrorists regimes for example the Taliban reigme's AK47 are all made in china.
Its "Made in China", but who sold these weapons to them, should I take the name of the country.

[Billy Tsai]

well that facts are clear that those countries want US help because there is no way they can completely defend themselves if North Korea or China invade, maybe they can slow down the invasion but not completely stop the invasion.
And The other facts are that North Korea has enough artillery and missiles targeting Seoul to make that city into a living hell and set it on fire completely even if US forces completely defeat North Korean regime, those weapons can be fired within hours of notice.
Also China has more than 400 long range tactical missiles targeting Taiwan and Taiwan did nothing to deserve that threat and Taiwan was never and will never be part of China, thats why US should deal with these countries diplomatically or militarily if that is the last solution.
By the way look at whats happening in Hong Kong recently the ppl there are definitely not happy about whats going on because they dont want to loose their very freedom and liberty.

[Billy Tsai]

http://www.google.com .. Enter " Weapons of mass destruction " then click Im feeling lucky